Monday, December 15, 2014

In an interview with Charlie Rose on 5 December 2014, Jordan’s king made the following statement:”[There is] A necessity to move the Israeli-Palestinian issue forward, especially with all of us now are dealing with a much bigger problem; the international fight against the international jihadists…the world has moved on but if we don’t unravel this and solve this problem between Israelis and Palestinians we are going to fight this fight with one arm behind our back.”.

While this statement might sound well intended, it actually
subliminally dictates an alarming rhetoric: the king is openly saying
the war on global Jihadist terror–in this case he was talking about the
war on ISIS– could be ineffective because of the situation in
Israel. And an ineffective war means terrorists could win and kill more
Americans. This is what the king told millions of American and Western
viewers.

Still, the above could have passed as an exaggeration or a misjudgment, was it not for the things the king said next.

When Charlie Rose asked the king whether there was a chance for a
peace deal during the remaining period of Obama’s term, he responded:”It
has to be because what happens if it is not. This is the critical
factor that both sides have to understand, we are now moving into
something much bigger, the global fight, the generational fight, if this thing is still cooking and not resolved how are we going to succeed on this larger problem?”
The king is telling millions of Americans that their country’s war on
terror would not succeed– and thus ISIS might grow and even win– unless
Israel and the Palestinians sign another peace agreement during
president Obama’s term.

But what are the Obama’s “terms” Jordan’s king talking about
there? President Obama made his peace vision very clear right before
AIPAC back in 2011: Israel returning to its 1967 borders.

* About the Author:Mudar Zahran is the Secretrary
General of the Jordanian Coalition of Opposition, a known Jordanian-
Palestinian politician and writer, who now resides in the UK as a
political refugee. His writings regularly appear in Arab, Israeli, and
American publications.

Pro-Keynesian Journalist Accidentally Shows that Smaller Government Is Good for Economic Growth

I don’t know if this is a good personality trait or a
character flaw, but it always brings a big smile to my face when a
leftist tries to argue for bigger government but inadvertently makes an
argument in favor of smaller government. Sort of like scoring a goal
against your own team in soccer.

We now have another example of a leftist inadvertently making an argument in favor of limited government (h/t: Coyote Blog via Cafe Hayek).

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones recently published an article
that includes a chart showing that private-sector job creation has
been much stronger under Obama’s recovery than during Bush’s recovery.
So how do we interpret this data?

I think one interpretation, as I argued both in 2012 and in 2013,
is that gridlock is good for the economy. As you can see from Drum’s
chart, job creation in the private sector jumped
significantly toward
the end of 2010, just as the GOP took control of the House of
Representatives.

It’s quite reasonable to think, after all, that
the private sector greeted the development with a sigh of relief since
it meant Obama would be stymied if he tried to impose any major new
fiscal or regulatory burdens through the legislative process.

Scalia: The Constitution Says Nothing About Torture

Senate Democrats released a highly controversial report
on the CIA’s post-9/11 Enhanced Interrogation Techniques this week and
the pushback was swift. Critics took issue with everything from the
partisan nature of the report, to the fact that CIA operatives were not
even interviewed, to the conclusion that the EITs were not an effective
means of acquiring intelligence.

Regarding the actual tactics,
there’s no way around the fact that they were unpleasant and in some
cases downright disturbing. But what about their constitutionality?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia weighed in on Wednesday, saying that the Constitution itself is actually silent on the matter.

Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia is joining the debate over the Senate's
torture report by saying it is difficult to rule out the use of extreme
measures to extract information if millions of lives were threatened.

Scalia
tells a Swiss radio network that American and European liberals who say
such tactics may never be used are being self-righteous.

The
78-year-old justice says he doesn't "think it's so clear at all,"
especially if interrogators were trying to find a ticking nuclear bomb.

CIA
Director John Brennan reminded Americans this week that in the
immediate aftermath of 9/11, the intelligence agency was “looked to for
answers.”

“Indeed, there were numerous, credible and
very worrisome reports about a second and third wave of major attacks
against the United States,” he said, “And while we grieved…we feared
more blows from an enemy we couldn’t see and an evil we couldn’t fathom.
This is the backdrop against which the agency was directed by President
Bush to carry out a program to detain terrorist suspects around the
world.”

He also reminded people that the program was
authorized by the Bush administration and the Department of Justice.
Only after President Obama took office, he continued, was the use of
EITs banned.

Interestingly, more Americans believe the public release of the report on the EITs is more harmful to U.S. interests than the actual tactics themselves.

It is illustrative of the left’s hatred for America that our intel
agencies are under fire for using enhanced interrogation techniques in
the wake of 9/11. It is also illustrative of the left’s chokehold on the
national dialogue and narrative.

The queston repeated back and forth is whether we got actionable
intelligence. First off — it’s an absurd question. If we extracted intel
and thwarted an Islamic attack, it was the right move, and if we
didn’t, it wasn’t? There is no way of knowing that going in, and no
responsible, rational administration is going risk thousands of American
lives so that jihadists can rest comfortably at Gitmo with three halal
squares, their laptops, prayer mats and...

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Qatar broke promise with US, allowed Gitmo detainee to leave the country

Relying
on allies that aren’t allies is yet another consequence of the
Washington establishment’s determined refusal to face the realities of
the jihad, and to formulate policy based on those realities.

“Qatar ‘broke promise to US over Guantanamo detainee,'” by David Blair, the Telegraph, December 12, 2014 (thanks to Lookmann):

Qatar broke an “explicit” promise by allowing a former
Guantánamo detainee who had trained with al-Qaeda to leave the country
and visit Britain, a new report has found.

Jarallah al-Marri, who attended an al-Qaeda training camp in
Afghanistan before the terrorist attacks on September 11, was freed from
Guantánamo in 2008.

Mr Marri was allowed to go home to Qatar in return for a formal
promise from the government of the Gulf state that he would not be
allowed to leave the country. But a report from the Foundation for the
Defence of Democracies in Washington said this pledge was broken.

Mr Marri was allowed to leave Qatar to visit Britain twice in 2009,
where he spoke at events alongside Moazzem Begg, another former
Guantánamo inmate. On his second visit, he was arrested by the British
authorities and returned to Qatar.

A diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in Qatar states that Mr Marri
was allowed back to the Gulf state “with the explicit understanding
(made via exchange of diplomatic notes) that he would be subject to a
travel ban”.

If Mr Marri tried to leave, the Qatari government promised to inform America.

Nonetheless, he was still allowed to visit Britain. The US cable
concludes that the Qatari authorities “deliberately withheld information
on Jarallah al-Marri’s travel outside of Qatar”….

"It's a badge of honor to be banned by a thug like Ortega. These
authoritarian heads of state like Ortega, Maduro and the Castro brothers
like to intimidate those who disagree with them and they use their
power randomly and ruthlessly," Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement.

"I'm not worried about being banned in Nicaragua. What frightens me is
the erosion of fundamental human rights throughout our hemisphere," the
South Florida congresswoman said. "I'm proud of the law that Marco,
[Sen.] Bob Menendez and I wrote that penalizes human-rights violators in
Venezuela and we'll work to place violators on that list, ban or no
ban."

President Barack Obama has indicated he will sign the bill into law.

Rubio and Ros-Lehtinen, Republicans from Miami, said the sanctions will
keep out members of the Venezuelan government who oppress those in their
native country while visiting areas such as South Florida to party.

"This is the first step to address human rights violations in Venezuela,
and it will be a blow to the hypocrites in Nicolás Maduro’s regime who
talk a lot about socialist sacrifice but who themselves are immune from
its failures and live in a fantasy world of gold-plated iPads and fancy
cars, even though most Venezuelans can’t even find basic necessities
like food and toilet paper," Rubio said.

Though the sanctions don't directly target Nicaragua, Ortega's
Sandinista government has received $3 billion in aid from Venezuela
since taking power in 2007, the Herald reported. Ortega previously ruled
the country in the 1980s when the Reagan administration backed the
Contra rebels against them.

Nicauragua also is allied with the Castro government in Cuba, which
Rubio and Ros-Lehtinen, both Cuban-Americans, oppose. Rubio, who is
thought to be mulling a 2016 presidential run, likely is happy to be
seen in the same light as Ronald Reagen vis-à-vis Ortega.

Ortega didn't say how long the ban had been in effect, Tico Times
reported, but he said Ros-Lehtinen tried to enter the country last
summer and was turned away.

Ortega said other American officials are on his banned list, but did not say who they are.

“It allows Republicans to show they are committed to ending Obama’s
amnesty once and for all in the next Congress. If we agree it is indeed
unconstitutional, we have no business funding it when the GOP controls
Congress.”
- Senator Ted Cruz (TX.) before the vote on the 'CRomnibus' spending bill

Ted Cruz (along with Mike Lee) tried...he really did...but the Senate
rejected his Constitutional proxy 'Point of Order' on Obama's
immigration executive action when he directly targeted the funding for
the Department of Homeland Security.

Rightfully using the spending bill as leverage to try and stop the
implementation of Obama's executive ordered immigration reform, Cruz
tried to defy RINO party leaders and their hanger-ons who cut deals with
Obama and Reid to try and assure smooth passage of the $1.1 trillion
spending bill. So in an attempt to force a Senate vote on said action as
a condition for approving this disastrous bill, Cruz presented the
argument that the bill violated the Constitution (and it surely does) because
it would fund Obama’s plan as it rewrites current on-the-books
immigration laws without any say whatsoever from Congress. And Cruz made
sure he presented this to the Senate chamber in such a way that it was
in keeping with long-standing Senate practices.

"If you believe President Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional, vote
yes...if you believe Obama's amnesty is consistent with the
Constitution, then vote no." Cruz had said in his trying to get his
fellow Republicans to understand the severity of what they were voting
on.

And yet the Senate rejected Cruz's arguments for NO other reason than
the Senate is still controlled by the Democrats and a large number of
turncoat RINOS until...and it can't come soon enough...January 6th when
the 114th Congress is sworn in at noon.

Had the Senate sided with Cruz, this "mess of a bill" as he called
it, would have been sent back to the House to have an amendment added to
it that would have stopped the funding for Obama's unilateral
immigration reform. But by a vote 22-74 against Cruz...and with less
than half of the Senate’s 45 Republicans voting with him*...this still
Harry Reid led Senate proved once again to be deaf to the wishes of 'We
the People'...wishes that we shouted loud and clear back on November
4th.

And for those Republicans that voted against him...those like Sen.
Bob Corker from Tennessee who had the audacity to call what Cruz did
“irresponsible”...RINO extraordinaire Sen. Lindsey Graham from South
Carolina who blamed Cruz's actions for causing the garnering of less votes than it
would have gotten without him butting in... and Senator Orrin Hatch from
Utah who said Cruz's antics irritated a lot of people... it will be
remembered by true Conservatives next time they are up for re-election.
And just know that payback will once again...as it was just some six or
so weeks ago...be a b*tch.

And with that, the 1,603-page $1.1 trillion spending
bill...reminiscent in length of the nightmare ObamaCare bill isn't
it...and the last major piece of legislation for this year...was passed
by the Senate late Saturday night thus avoiding another possible
government shutdown. But I say they should have shut the whole damn
Obama government down, especially since essential services by law would
continue to be funded. And as an added bonus by shutting the government
down Obama could go play golf and thus do NO more harm to this country
while he was doing so.

In a vote of 56 to 40** the so-called 'CRomnibus' bill (the combined
continuing resolution and omnibus funding bill) will now provide funding
for NOT only the dreaded ObamaCare, but for most government departments
and agencies through fiscal year September 2015, that is except for the
Department of Homeland Security which will only be funded through the
end of February. And the Republicans say they intend to use the time
between now and then to try and find ways to defund and halt
Obama's easing of deportation rules...ain't going to hold my breath for
that one...but with the new Republican controlled Congress being seated come January there is a possibility...albeit a remote one...that they can
pull it off...that is if the party unites and stops all the in-fighting.

But this very in-fighting between the RINOS versus the Conservatives
and TEA Party Republicans...in-fighting NOT of Cruz's doing in my
opinion...has now afforded 'Prince' Harry Reid the opportunity to move
ahead next week...before this lame-duck Congress goes on Christmas
break...with the 24 Obama nominees who most likely would NOT have been
approved come the new Congress...nominees like 13 district court
judges, 11 nominees to administration posts including customs
enforcement officials and Carolyn Colvin to head the Social Security
Administration along with the ubber liberal Vivek Murphy for Surgeon
General.

Just a bit more of anything but happiness thanks to the RINOS who would NOT support Cruz.

But what was even more surprising about this final vote is that six
Democrats actually sided with the Republicans against passage but NOT
because they saw Obama's actions as wrong but because of two provisions
in specific that they did NOT like...one a provision that weakens the
Dodd-Frank Act's restrictions on banks that allows the banks to back
their bets with taxpayer-backed insurance, and the other a provision
that allows for an increase in the amounts that wealthy donors can give
to major political parties. In fact, some Democrats claimed that these
two provisions would have allowed already wealthy Wall Street employees to
earn even more money, which they believe Republicans in turn would use to
'reward,' if you will, those who backed the spending deal.

Accusing the Republicans of kick-backs now aren't they.

But NO matter who voted which way, the bottom line is that 'We the
People' are screwed and stuck with a monstrosity of a spending bill. And
while the bill as passed does block funding of the 'risk corridors'
(insurer's cost projections that in reality could cause individual plans
to end up costing more than the insurers projections) that under
ObamaCare could lead to a government bailout of the insurance companies
at a huge cost to the American taxpayer, and does cut a bit more funding
to the EPA to a tune of $60 million as well as prohibiting the IRA from
targeting conservative organizations because of the way they chose to
exercise their First Amendment rights, this 'CRomnibus' bill very
unwisely caps spending for all-important national defense at $521 billion...very
dangerous in this ever-expanding violent day and age of the islamic
terrorist.

So as this sitting Congress soon retires for the holidays and as a
new Congress gets ready to be seated, at least we start 2015 knowing we
NO longer will have to deal with 'Prince' Harry Reid blocking every bill
that originates with Republicans. But sadly, we also know that at least
for now, work visas are still on the horizon for at least five million
Obama-made legal ILLEGALS and all because the RINOS amongst us did NOT
get that Ted Cruz was right...once again.
_____________________________________________________

EMAIL FOLLOWERS

Follow My Posts by Email

The Patriot Factor

I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. I am also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on RSP Radio at: https://streamingv2.shoutcast.com/right-side-patriots